Oakspear

Did somebody call me? This thread has chugged along pretty quickly and I haven't read all the posts, so please forgive me ;) if I cover ground that has already been covered. My beliefs don't include the notion of a "sin nature", nor anything like a "fall". People are people and each of us has the ability to do great good and great evil, each of us has the potential to be wise or foolish. But I also believe that each of us is responsible for our own actions. Forgiveness? I believe that forgiveness has two sides. One is to allow the one being forgiven the opportunity to change and the other is to allow the forgiver the opportunity to heal. To allow the other the chance to change, I believe that I have to open myself to being hurt again, but to trust that the other will change in truth. In this aspect of forgiveness I don't dismiss or minimize the damage, but let the other know that I am willing to continue our relationship, yet expect that the action that prompted the need for forgiveness will not recur. When dealing with someone who does not want to change, I do not apply the aspect of forgiveness that opens me up for damage, but I may employ the face of forgiveness that allows my wound to heal, to allow the hurt to go away, to decide that the hurt was not important enough for me to continue to allow the would to fester. I decide that the other no longer has power over me. In the case of Wierwille, we not only have the man who not only apparently did not ask for forgiveness, but whose heirs continued his legacy. Many still hold him in esteem and trust his words and base their theology upon them. What else to do but tell the "other side of the story"?

I'm not someone who looks for angels, so maybe I've encountered them and didn't recognize them. The mental place that I'm in these days I'm thankful for when things work out, or synchronicity puts some helpful soul in front of me. I can't think of any incidents that cause me to say "There's no way that could have been natural, it must have been an angel!" - but there's plenty of incidents where people came out of nowhere to help me out...bless 'em. I used to travel a lot for my job with a regional newspaper, and usually was able to plan around the weather and miss the worst of it. One particular day I ignored my intuition and took off in the snow, which soon turned into a blizzard. Even driving slowly I lost track of where the road was and ended up in a ditch. This was before cell phones had become ubiquitous, so I was stuck about 5 miles from the nearest town and unsure where the nearest farmhouse was. Before I had taken five steps a big pickup truck roars up and out pop three big cornfed Nebraska farmboys. Without a word they hitch a tow line to my car and two of them get behind the car and push. Without waiting for thanks they jumped in their truck and took off. Were they angels? Dunno. :huh: I suppose if I was inclined to think in that direction I might say yeah, they were. But I don't think in that direction, so I don't give it much thought; whoever they were they got me out of the snow and I'm thankful for their help.

I disagree with this assessment

You think there'll be rules against "stow-ries"?

The source that I found quoted Einstein as saying that the cosmological constant, a fudge factor in his equations was his greatest blunderhttp://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~jpl/cosmo/blunder.html

The Athletes of the Spirit teaching wasn't that God's blessings were limited to jocks and didn't refer to literal athletic ability. It was a figure of speech comparing our walk as believers to an athletic contest. Yup. This was one of those things that didn't make sense to me when I first heard it, but I "held it in abeyance" figuring I'd get spiritually smarter as time went on While there are some athletic references in the epistles, Ephesians 6 is military through and through. Karl K does a great job of dissecting this teaching in The Cult That Snapped.

From the lawsuit announcement in April (?) 2000 until August 2001 I was "underground" posting on Waydale & GSC until I was found out by the WayGB. After a confrontation by my twig coordinator and the Region Coordinator & his wife I was informed over the phone that I was no longer welcome at Way functions because I "did not believe that the Trustees were leading the ministry in the right direction". Immediately thereafter the RC began giving me instructions. After I laughed at him, he told me that he was not convinced that I would do as he asked. I replied that he had abdicated any authority that he had over me by throwing me out.

Yup

In the OT there were different penalties for different sins, so at least then all sins were not the same. What evidence is tere that it changed?

While visiting my family in New York last week, my brother told me about Russel Timoshenko. Timoshenko was a cop for all of a year and a half when he and his partner pulled over a car that had plates registered to another car. After stopping, the driver shot Timoshenko twice in the face and fled. I'm sure that if the officers had been mistaken about the plates, or if there had been a good reason for the plates being wrong, then it would have been looked upon as harrassment, or arrogant cops. Maybe if Timoshenko and his partner, Herman Yan, had spent a little more quality time with their coffee and doughnuts, Timoshenko would be alive today.

My father is a retired cop and my brother is a homicide detective sergeant. I find your generalization offensive.

For a biblical research group they sure left out the context when it suited them, didn't they?

You linked to the page for editing the "labyrith" article, not the article itself.

When I was kicked out of TWI in 2001 I was still married to my first wife, who had been involved in TWI since '71 or '72. She was allowed to stay in. I remember her being genuinely concerned that we would not be able to "agree" on anything, since she was in TWI and I wasn't. At the time I still was a Christian and still believed that one could "work the Word" using the magic decoder ring of "keys to research" and divine the will of God. I told her that we were both adults who had been taught how to read and understand the bible and that surely we could use our skill at "working the Word" to reach a godly compromise if we disagreed. Several days later she announced that she would never compromise on the Word and that my thinking was a priori wrong due to my separation from "the household". She had the full backing of local TWI leadership in her position. Shortly thereafter she kicked me out of our home, convinced that she was "unequally yoked to an unbeliever" because I was no longer welcome at TWI fellowships. Black & white thinking? You bet.

I was out of town for over a week and missed all of this discussion until this morning. Interesting stuff. I believe that outright banning and even agressive moderating/editing causes more problems than it solves. Part of what makes this a unique and valuable site is the presence of many who swim against the stream, who hold minority views. There are many places where the pro-Wierwille, pro-PFAL, pro-TWI position is heralded with no dissension whatsoever allowed, e.g. TWI's own site, web pages of the offshoots, and privately owned sites like Family Tables. Even an anti-TWI site like Juedes' doesn't allow dissenting opinions. Personally I find that encountering reasonably stated opposition sharpens my own position, helps me to be more logical in what I think and believe. That being said, there are posters who are not logical, not reasonable, and contribute little to the discussion. What do we do with them? I've always been a proponent of letting the idiots prove that they're idiots by their idiotic words. We've got posters who repeatedly tells us that first-hand testimony isn't reliable for a variety of reasons, but carefully avoid using the words "lie", "liar", "lying", etc. Does anyone seriously believe that the posters who do this have any agenda other than propping up their dead idol, despite their protestations to the contrary? Let the fools trumpet their foolishness.

I see you've all been keeping this discussion going while I've been on vacation. Geisha: I appreciate the time you've taken to explain your POV, very well articulated. Of course you believe that your position is the only true one, I get that and am not offended. It makes sense from your angle. You've gone farther in spelling out why Christianity makes sense than any other that I have seen. Bravo! Hope to see you around the forums.

Wasn't that a song by George harrison? <_<

Anamchara did we entice you over to this thread with all the talk of a civil discussion?

It didn't seem evil to me, but it did seem like the stupidest thing I'd ever seen. The mornonic television show was even worse. I can't believe it's still around

Actually, I like it that you have to search a bit for the doctrinal forum, helps keep out the riff-raff For me, the ideal doctrinal discussion would get heated at times, but different points would be considered. I don't know how many times I thought "Hmm, I never thought about it from that angle before". Phrases (in the context of a doctrinal discussion) that tick me off are sound something like "It's clearly written..." or "That's what the Word says" or "It's not my opinion, that's what God says. I have no problem with anyone believing that, it's just that it does nothing to further a discussion. Equally irritating are remarks like "What difference does it make? There's no God". It's a discussion forum, if you don't want to discuss, then this isn't your hangout .

Sunesis: I wouldn't get upset about the biblical god being referred to as the "skygod" any more than I should get upset at being called a "demon". Ignorant people will not go away just because we're annoyed at them. edited for spelling because the original post followed 3 Jack Daniels and much beer

Follow up to Sunesis while I'm waiting for bride to check back in: Like I said earlier, the things that you mentioned do occur. Christians do get ridiculed and insulted. It's wrong. What also happens is that some of the Christians ridicule and insult the non-Christians. Sometimes both sides get insulted when no insult is meant. Part of disagreement is that you believe that the other side is wrong. Believers, consistant with their belief system, see atheists as blind to the handiwork of God evident in the world, atheists, consistant in their belief system, see believers as credulous and yes, engaged in illogical thinking. It shouldn't be a surprise to either camp that the other feels this way. But first, is there a polite way to express these opinions without being insulting and condescending? Second, is it necessary to get one's defenses up because someone is less than diplomatic? Speaking from the non-Christian side of the cafe, sometimes we disagree with you guys. We don't believe that the bible is god-breathed, and yes, we will question assertions that you make. Most of you are smart enough to discuss your beliefs rather than cutting off discussion with remarks like "That's what the Word says", because a lot of the time, not all Christians agree that that is what the Words says, let alone what it means. As an ex-wayfer I enjoy getting involved in doctrinal discussions because part of me wants to know how I got fooled, how I was reeled in by Wierwillism. Part of me just enjoys good intellectual debate. But I've been told that I shouldn't participate in doctrinal diuscussion because I am not a Christian, and my opinion was dismissed by a poster who suggested that another poster "not listen to demons". This isn't a pity contest. I'm not trying to prove that I'm more persecuted than you are. The point I'm trying to make is that it's not just that Christians are getting picked, but everyone is being treated with disrespect. I point out again the law of Believing thread's last several pages, a polite, civil, reasonable discussion is being held among several posters, none of whom agree with each other in the slightest. I point out my many discussions with WordWolf, a committed Christian that I have had many fruitful discussions with, because we each respect the other despite a wide chasm between our beliefs. I'm all for getting along and keeping this a place for discussion, not derision.

Are you saying that the doctrinal forum is only for those who fall into that category? If I misunderstand please correct my misapprehension.

Semblance? ;) http://www.despair.com/pretension.html